4 ms·

> Godaddy is distancing themselves because they don't want to be associated with those things. Would it also be reasonable for browsers also black list the web

> Godaddy is distancing themselves because they don't want to be associated with those things. Would it also be reasonable for browsers also black list the website in question "because they don't want to be associated with those things"?

EGreg 8y ago
This is the difference between open source platforms and capitalistic platforms. One is far more benign and is simply an unopinionated tool. The other has a huge power and daya asymmetry can do anything at any time, subject only to the reputational and competition constraints. And the competition needs to build everything from scratch instead of just forking. Guess which one always wins in the end :) As time goes on, the Atlas Shrugged argument of “but who will want to build the next thing if you limit their upside with taxes and regulations?” will be less and less relevant. I’d like to see a society where instead of John Galts we have collaborative snowballs like Wikipedia and Science where everyone adds a tiny bit without chilling effects of intellectual property lawsuits. But how will people eat? UBI.
- omnimus 8y ago
  I am afraid ruling class reads too much Ayn Rand and will never allow this. Only way is to go around. Somehow.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Sure, if they felt that was necessary to protect their image! (Or if they wanted to for any other reason, but the image idea seems most likely.) Right now, that's not an issue because all of the browsers are equally able to access all websites. So no browser's image is tarnished by providing access to Gab. Like imagine if there were four browsers but only one could be used to access Gab.ai. And people who don't like antisemitism knew that and began threatening to boycott that browser and encourage others to do the same. It would be totally reasonable for that browser to remove support for Gab.ai at that point.

EGreg 8y ago

This is the difference between open source platforms and capitalistic platforms. One is far more benign and is simply an unopinionated tool. The other has a huge power and daya asymmetry can do anything at any time, subject only to the reputational and competition constraints. And the competition needs to build everything from scratch instead of just forking. Guess which one always wins in the end :) As time goes on, the Atlas Shrugged argument of “but who will want to build the next thing if you limit their upside with taxes and regulations?” will be less and less relevant. I’d like to see a society where instead of John Galts we have collaborative snowballs like Wikipedia and Science where everyone adds a tiny bit without chilling effects of intellectual property lawsuits. But how will people eat? UBI.

omnimus 8y ago
I am afraid ruling class reads too much Ayn Rand and will never allow this. Only way is to go around. Somehow.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

Sure, if they felt that was necessary to protect their image! (Or if they wanted to for any other reason, but the image idea seems most likely.) Right now, that's not an issue because all of the browsers are equally able to access all websites. So no browser's image is tarnished by providing access to Gab. Like imagine if there were four browsers but only one could be used to access Gab.ai. And people who don't like antisemitism knew that and began threatening to boycott that browser and encourage others to do the same. It would be totally reasonable for that browser to remove support for Gab.ai at that point.